Chronic Osteoarthritis Is 'Severe Illness' Under Railway Rules; Penal Rent For Retention Of Govt Accommodation Not Sustainable: Delhi HC

Background Facts

The respondent was appointed in the Indian Railways Account Service in 1987. He was allotted government accommodation at a Railway Officers Colony. In 2017, his request for transfer to Modern Coach Factory, Raebareli, was pending when he was promoted and transferred to East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar. He was permitted to retain his Delhi accommodation for eight months due to his wife's sickness.

Later, the railway authorities informed him that his continued retention of the accommodation was unauthorized. Therefore, he was liable to pay penal damage rent. The respondent submitted his representations seeking regularization of the quarter under Railway Board circulars, but his request was rejected. A penal rent was imposed from July 2018. He vacated the accommodation in May 2019.

The respondent later made several representations requesting a waiver of the penal charges. However, the authorities assessed the damage rent at over ₹20 lakh and recovered a substantial part from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity.

Aggrieved, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the recovery orders. The Tribunal directed the Railway Board to reconsider his case for regularization. It was directed to refund the recovered amount after adjusting normal license fees.

Dissatisfied with this direction, the Union of India filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

It was contended by the UOI that the respondent had exhausted the maximum permissible retention period of eight months for medical reasons. Further no extension was permissible under the Railway Board's Master Circular. The UOI emphasized the opinion of the Principal Chief Medical Director that the respondent's wife was suffering from osteoarthritis, which did not meet the mandatory criterion of a severe illness required for retaining accommodation beyond the prescribed limit on medical grounds.

On the other hand, it was contended by respondent that his wife was suffering from chronic osteoarthritis which is a degenerative and painful condition. It constituted a “severe illness” under the Railway Board's circulars. It was submitted that the “severe illness” was the basis for the eight-month retention permission granted to him.

Findings of the Court

It was noted by the court that the UOI approached the court more than 10 months after the Tribunal's order without offering any satisfactory justification for the delay. It was observed that such unexplained inaction goes against equitable jurisdiction.

It was further observed that the respondent was granted permission to retain his government accommodation for eight months due to his wife's severe illness. However, the authorities later refused to regularize the retention period, claiming osteoarthritis did not qualify as a “severe illness” which required prolonged indoor treatment. It was found by the court that the claim of authorities was inconsistent, as the same medical condition had earlier been accepted as grounds for retention.

It was held that “severe illness” includes chronic degenerative conditions which require prolonged or repeated indoor treatment. Since osteoarthritis is a chronic and progressive disease causing long-term disability and pain, it rightly falls within the category of “Serious Illness” as per relevant Railway Board circulars, including RBE No. 119/2022. Further RBE No. 119/2022 states that special license fee is not to be levied for retention of railway accommodation on account of “Serious Illness”.

It was also observed by the Division Bench that the Tribunal directed to place the respondent's case before the Railway Board for regularization and to refund the recovered penal rent, however, the Board rejected the request without proper consideration. This amounted to non-compliance with the Tribunal's order.

Accordingly, the Tribunal's decision was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the UOI was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Union of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar Manocha

Case No. : W.P.(C) 17418/2025

Counsel for the Petitioners : Jagdish Chandra Solanki, CGSC with Siddharth Bajaj and Sujeet Choudhary, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent : None